Clinical e-mail in an academic dermatology setting

Kevin F. Kia, Anna Tavakkoli, Charles N. Ellis

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

5 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: Use of e-mail among patients and physicians is limited by reservations over issues such as medicolegal aspects, reimbursement, and time-management. Objective: Our purpose was to identify the content of patient-related e-mails in an academic dermatology practice and determine whether clinical questions could be answered by e-mail. Methods: The first 100 e-mails received each year that related to patients from January 1, 2000 to June 1, 2005 (plus any messages received in e-mail threads started in the original 100) were studied (N = 614). E-mails were sent by patients, potential patients, or physicians in reference to a patient. E-mails were divided into 8 categories on the basis of content. E-mails were subdivided as relating to new (patients who had never been seen in-person) or established patients. All clinical questions were categorized as to whether they were answered by e-mail. The average number of e-mails received per e-mail thread was tallied. Results: E-mails were distributed as follows: clinical question from a physician (20%), clinical question from a patient (17%), appointment request (18%), request for referral to another physician (7%), prescription refill (3%), research inquiry (2%), thank-you correspondence (31%), other (17%). Percentages do not equal 100 because some e-mails contained more than one subject. Clinical questions were more likely to be answered when posed by physicians (100%) than patients (70%; P = .001), and when from established (79%) versus new patients (60%; P = .02). There were fewer e-mails per thread for queries from physicians (1.6 messages received) versus patients (2.2; P < .001) and for established (1.6) versus new patients (2.2; P < .001). Limitations: This study was limited to the experience of one dermatologist in an academic setting. Conclusion: E-mail broadens communication between patients and their dermatologist. E-mail may facilitate consultation with other physicians and management of patients with chronic disease. "Thank-you" responses engage a substantial amount of e-mail resources.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1019-1024
Number of pages6
JournalJournal of the American Academy of Dermatology
Volume54
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - Jun 2006

Fingerprint

Postal Service
Dermatology
Physicians
Referral and Consultation
Time Management
Prescriptions
Appointments and Schedules
Chronic Disease

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Dermatology

Cite this

Clinical e-mail in an academic dermatology setting. / Kia, Kevin F.; Tavakkoli, Anna; Ellis, Charles N.

In: Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, Vol. 54, No. 6, 06.2006, p. 1019-1024.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Kia, Kevin F. ; Tavakkoli, Anna ; Ellis, Charles N. / Clinical e-mail in an academic dermatology setting. In: Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology. 2006 ; Vol. 54, No. 6. pp. 1019-1024.
@article{4fbafb3578f0452292defdeb2b43a586,
title = "Clinical e-mail in an academic dermatology setting",
abstract = "Background: Use of e-mail among patients and physicians is limited by reservations over issues such as medicolegal aspects, reimbursement, and time-management. Objective: Our purpose was to identify the content of patient-related e-mails in an academic dermatology practice and determine whether clinical questions could be answered by e-mail. Methods: The first 100 e-mails received each year that related to patients from January 1, 2000 to June 1, 2005 (plus any messages received in e-mail threads started in the original 100) were studied (N = 614). E-mails were sent by patients, potential patients, or physicians in reference to a patient. E-mails were divided into 8 categories on the basis of content. E-mails were subdivided as relating to new (patients who had never been seen in-person) or established patients. All clinical questions were categorized as to whether they were answered by e-mail. The average number of e-mails received per e-mail thread was tallied. Results: E-mails were distributed as follows: clinical question from a physician (20{\%}), clinical question from a patient (17{\%}), appointment request (18{\%}), request for referral to another physician (7{\%}), prescription refill (3{\%}), research inquiry (2{\%}), thank-you correspondence (31{\%}), other (17{\%}). Percentages do not equal 100 because some e-mails contained more than one subject. Clinical questions were more likely to be answered when posed by physicians (100{\%}) than patients (70{\%}; P = .001), and when from established (79{\%}) versus new patients (60{\%}; P = .02). There were fewer e-mails per thread for queries from physicians (1.6 messages received) versus patients (2.2; P < .001) and for established (1.6) versus new patients (2.2; P < .001). Limitations: This study was limited to the experience of one dermatologist in an academic setting. Conclusion: E-mail broadens communication between patients and their dermatologist. E-mail may facilitate consultation with other physicians and management of patients with chronic disease. {"}Thank-you{"} responses engage a substantial amount of e-mail resources.",
author = "Kia, {Kevin F.} and Anna Tavakkoli and Ellis, {Charles N.}",
year = "2006",
month = "6",
doi = "10.1016/j.jaad.2006.02.046",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "54",
pages = "1019--1024",
journal = "Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology",
issn = "0190-9622",
publisher = "Mosby Inc.",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Clinical e-mail in an academic dermatology setting

AU - Kia, Kevin F.

AU - Tavakkoli, Anna

AU - Ellis, Charles N.

PY - 2006/6

Y1 - 2006/6

N2 - Background: Use of e-mail among patients and physicians is limited by reservations over issues such as medicolegal aspects, reimbursement, and time-management. Objective: Our purpose was to identify the content of patient-related e-mails in an academic dermatology practice and determine whether clinical questions could be answered by e-mail. Methods: The first 100 e-mails received each year that related to patients from January 1, 2000 to June 1, 2005 (plus any messages received in e-mail threads started in the original 100) were studied (N = 614). E-mails were sent by patients, potential patients, or physicians in reference to a patient. E-mails were divided into 8 categories on the basis of content. E-mails were subdivided as relating to new (patients who had never been seen in-person) or established patients. All clinical questions were categorized as to whether they were answered by e-mail. The average number of e-mails received per e-mail thread was tallied. Results: E-mails were distributed as follows: clinical question from a physician (20%), clinical question from a patient (17%), appointment request (18%), request for referral to another physician (7%), prescription refill (3%), research inquiry (2%), thank-you correspondence (31%), other (17%). Percentages do not equal 100 because some e-mails contained more than one subject. Clinical questions were more likely to be answered when posed by physicians (100%) than patients (70%; P = .001), and when from established (79%) versus new patients (60%; P = .02). There were fewer e-mails per thread for queries from physicians (1.6 messages received) versus patients (2.2; P < .001) and for established (1.6) versus new patients (2.2; P < .001). Limitations: This study was limited to the experience of one dermatologist in an academic setting. Conclusion: E-mail broadens communication between patients and their dermatologist. E-mail may facilitate consultation with other physicians and management of patients with chronic disease. "Thank-you" responses engage a substantial amount of e-mail resources.

AB - Background: Use of e-mail among patients and physicians is limited by reservations over issues such as medicolegal aspects, reimbursement, and time-management. Objective: Our purpose was to identify the content of patient-related e-mails in an academic dermatology practice and determine whether clinical questions could be answered by e-mail. Methods: The first 100 e-mails received each year that related to patients from January 1, 2000 to June 1, 2005 (plus any messages received in e-mail threads started in the original 100) were studied (N = 614). E-mails were sent by patients, potential patients, or physicians in reference to a patient. E-mails were divided into 8 categories on the basis of content. E-mails were subdivided as relating to new (patients who had never been seen in-person) or established patients. All clinical questions were categorized as to whether they were answered by e-mail. The average number of e-mails received per e-mail thread was tallied. Results: E-mails were distributed as follows: clinical question from a physician (20%), clinical question from a patient (17%), appointment request (18%), request for referral to another physician (7%), prescription refill (3%), research inquiry (2%), thank-you correspondence (31%), other (17%). Percentages do not equal 100 because some e-mails contained more than one subject. Clinical questions were more likely to be answered when posed by physicians (100%) than patients (70%; P = .001), and when from established (79%) versus new patients (60%; P = .02). There were fewer e-mails per thread for queries from physicians (1.6 messages received) versus patients (2.2; P < .001) and for established (1.6) versus new patients (2.2; P < .001). Limitations: This study was limited to the experience of one dermatologist in an academic setting. Conclusion: E-mail broadens communication between patients and their dermatologist. E-mail may facilitate consultation with other physicians and management of patients with chronic disease. "Thank-you" responses engage a substantial amount of e-mail resources.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=33646501024&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=33646501024&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.jaad.2006.02.046

DO - 10.1016/j.jaad.2006.02.046

M3 - Article

C2 - 16713456

AN - SCOPUS:33646501024

VL - 54

SP - 1019

EP - 1024

JO - Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology

JF - Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology

SN - 0190-9622

IS - 6

ER -